Category: politicians

I live way out here in California, and because I’ve been politically active for a while, I’ve wound up on a lot of mailing lists. This email came through my mailbox. Is any of this true?

Just curious,

Dear Sal.

Congress is under attack by a radical Islamic fundamentalist.

Yes, I’m talking about Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a man who openly flouts his ties with CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations), a group with strong ties to funding terrorism throughout the world. He is also proud to have marched with Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, during the “Million man march” of 1995, who has a strong track record for racism and bigotry.

As the most radical Member of Congress, Mr. Ellison practically blamed George W. Bush for 9/11 by comparing Bush’s actions after the terrorist attack, to the Nazi’s after the Reichstag fire in Germany. Mr. Ellison is rated more liberal than Nancy Pelosi by several prominent, national organizations for raising taxes and threatening your gun rights.

My name is Lynne Torgerson, and I am running to be the Representative for the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. I am seeking to defeat Keith Ellison, a most dangerous member of our federal government.

As a decades-long resident of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota, I am deeply troubled to be represented by a man who actively opposes American values and has such close ties to known terrorist organizations. Further, what do you think about Mr. Ellison’s career as he:

refused to take his Congressional oath with the Bible;

improperly accepted a $13,000 trip from a Muslim organization for a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia;

cried in front of a Congress in March 2011 while defending Muslims during a committee hearing on the 9/11 attacks;

associates with known terrorist organizations and others seeking to do our nation harm.

Ellison will clearly have the support of his friend, President Obama, Labor Unions, Moveon.org and CAIR, all of who will stop at nothing to weaken our national security and fully implement Obamacare. They will attempt to threaten and silence me as they tried, and failed to do, in the past.

These groups want to prevent another Constitutional expert from being elected to Congress. They’re worried I’ll walk into the halls of Congress to repeal Obamacare, cut the size of our bloated federal government and eliminate our federal debt.

And they’re right!

With gas at almost $4 per gallon, unemployment increasing again, food prices on the rise, and our nation on the brink of bankruptcy, it is clear our nation’s leaders needs a clarion call towards sanity in order to preserve the American Dream.

What kind of nation will our children inherit if we permit more government spending or hand the reigns over to radical Islamists like Keith Ellison?

As a proud conservative, I am a practicing attorney in Minneapolis for the last 20 years and have dedicated my life to protecting the Constitutional rights of people of all races, nationalities, and religions, as our Founding Fathers established. I started my career as a clerk to a U.S. District Court Judge, and recently won a case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a Member of Congress, I will strictly adhere to the principles of our Founding Fathers and never apologize for being:

Pro-America;

Pro Strong Homeland Security;

Pro-Life;

Pro-2nd Amendment;

Pro-Traditional marriage; and

Pro-Israel.

If you share my views, then join me in the fight to preserve sanity in America for the sake of our children. Help me change statist Washington while also defeating the most radical member of the U.S. Congress.

Last week’s valiant efforts by the Navy SEALS puts closure on a chapter in America’s history and is a great reward to the long fight against radical Islam. It is now time to build upon that victory for the upcoming and grueling 2012 election season without giving up until we win.

Like all Americans, I know that our priority is fixing the economy and creating jobs, but we can’t lose sight that radical Islamic fundamentalists are influencing our government and putting citizens in harm’s way, like when Keith Ellison:

voted against funding our troops;

voted against sanctioning Iran;

failed to pay his taxes for 7 years, but voted to INCREASE YOURS.

Unlike our ultra liberal Democratic foes, we understand that America faces threats from enemies both foreign and domestic. Keith Ellison represents one of the most significant threats to America, and that’s why I need your help to defeat him.

This is your chance to help rid our nation of a radical Muslim fundamentalist, like the people who:

The Ides of March must make politicians nervous. This was the day in 44 BC that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of Roman senators who believed Caesar intended to take over the Republic and turn it into a monarchy. The murderers justified themselves saying they were merely protecting the Republic but everybody knows they were merely protecting their own political aspirations.

Nowadays, the group using the rhetoric of protection claims they are “protecting” marriage. Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families claim that same-sex marriage is the biggest threat to home and country, and we must exterminate homosexuals to protect our Democracy.

Of course, you can see through these Liberatores Governor. Marriage is not threatened – only political power. Their campaign is driven by political aspirations to knock out the Democrats. When they have accomplished that, who do you think they are going to turn to, Mr. Moderate Republican? Do you really think there room in their family for a foreigner who resists attempts to merge Church and State? Indeed, while today the back they are sticking a knife into is mine, tomorrow the back will be yours.

You have done a lot for the equality of all Californians, but you stopped short of supporting gay marriage. We could really use your help with the upcoming ballot initiative driving voters to the polls. Please tell the people that it is time to stop “protecting marriage” and start improving it. The back you save may be your own.

I wrote to you before about the prime minister of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and his courage in bringing same-sex marriage to Spain. You will be happy to know that, despite an all-out effort by the Roman Catholic Church, Zapatero was decisively reelected to a second term today.

How did he do it? Here’s what he said in his acceptance speech:

“The Spanish people have spoken clearly and decided to start a new era, I will govern with a firm but open hand . . . I will govern for all, but do so thinking most of all of those in need.” – March 9 2008

Here are some other quotes showing that his firm but open hand has a long history:

I will never understand those who proclaim love as the foundation of life, while denying so radically protection, understanding and affection to our neighbors, our friends, our relatives, our colleagues. What kind of love is this that excludes those who experience their sexuality in a different way? – May 11, 2005

It is time to bring to an end, once and for all, the intolerable discrimination still suffered by many Spaniards exclusively by virtue of their sexual preferences. Homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals and have the right to live freely the life that they themselves have chosen. – April 15, 2004

Governor, I wish I could be so happy with your political future. A firm and open hand only works when it is open to the people and closed to the Opponents of Equality. Don’t we deserve as much freedom from you as Zapatero brought Spain? Please don’t stop your support for California’s lesbian and gay people before you support their freedom to marry.

I don’t know why this was relevant to AB 849. The bill would not have “reversed an initiative” but rather changed a 1977 law signed by your current Attorney General, Edmund “Jerry” Brown.

I am worried that your Attorney General’s office is biased against the freedom to marry. To defend the state’s position, the office wrote “the words ‘marry’ and ‘marriage’ have no essential significance under the California Constitution,” and that there are no differences between California’s registered domestic partners and married couples under state law.

If there are no differences, why does a different section of the Family Code apply to my family and yours? If there are no differences, why are they – and you – opposed to merging them through AB 43? The fact is that same-sex couples have been carved out for special denial of the basic security of marriage that everybody else – including you and your Attorney General – so blithely enjoy, because of a law that your Attorney General signed!

The lesbian and gay communities have joined with the religious communities to ask for the freedom to marry as they choose, while your Attorney General’s office is siding with the Opponents of Equality to defend a bad law from 1977 by mischaracterizing it as a voter initiative.

It is offensive to my sense of justice to have the Attorney General working harder for your personal protection than for the people of this state. Please sign AB 43 so we can get the Attorney General out of the business of deciding who should – and should not – have the freedom to marry.

With the legislature back, you must be busy. Your Health Care program and legendary budget restraint are making national news. How will you move our government forward without reckless spending?

Please consider signing AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. It fixes a mistake our legislature and Governor Jerry Brown made in 1977 when they redefined marriage, it will save California money, and it’s easy common ground: everybody believes in full equality for all Californians.

I know that you have a lot to worry about with your election on Tuesday but you seem to have been quite critical of your opponents support of AB 43, the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act” without apparently understanding what the bill is about. It would be quite sad if voters elected somebody who opposed their freedom based on incomplete information.

I found this statement about AB 43 on your stump page http://www.lbreport.com/ads/37cong/kan2.htm where you said:

“This past June California Assembly members voted to legalize homosexual marriage, completely and arrogantly ignoring the will of California voters who, in March of 2000, passed Prop. 22 with 61.4% of the vote. That initiative called for the state to recognize marriage as only being between one man and one woman. 101 of 120 legislative districts voted for this initiative.”

The truth is a little bit complicated, but so is being an effective legislator:

Proposition 22 did not call for the state to recognize marriage as only being between one man and one woman. Our Family Code already did that in Section 300, which was changed from “persons” to “man and woman” by the legislature in 1977 and signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

Proposition 22 was designed and sold to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions. That’s what the campaign was about, and that’s what the voters passed. It enhanced section 308 which says we recognize marriages from other states and countries, to limit that recognition to heterosexual marriages.

As a Republican, you ought to support full marriage equality in fact and in name, since it not only reduces duplicative laws and entitlement programs, but also gets government out of restricting our freedom.

If you had read AB 43 you would know that it doesn’t conflict with Proposition 22 one single bit. I think Californians deserve a candidate who reads laws before criticizing them at least as much as they deserve representatives who are not opposed to equality.

I got many more quotations that I could use in a letter. I think I probably already used too many. Here’s my list:

I’m a Catholic and I’m praying. But I am the prime minister of Canada and…I’m acting as a person responsible for the nation. The problem of my religion — I deal with it in other circumstances.

— Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, August 13 2003

If people want to do something and it doesn’t hurt other people, doesn’t reduce other people’s rights, we should let them do it. Why not?

— Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum, August 13, 2003

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not.

– Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, February 1, 2005

[S]ome have counseled the government to extend to Gays and Lesbians the right to civil union. This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians. …[S]eparate but equal is not equal.

– Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, February 1, 2005

Less than equal is less than adequate. To create another institution [such as civil unions] just contributes to the fact that we would tell those members of the gay and lesbian community that they are not entirely part of our society. Why wouldn’t they be part of marriage?

— Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon August 13, 2003

If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? How can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that [the constitution] will be there to protect us tomorrow?

– Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, February 1, 2005

We won’t be appealing the recent decision on the definition of marriage. Rather, we’ll be proposing legislation that will protect the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it. At the same time, we will ensure that our legislation includes and legally recognizes the union of same-sex couples.”

– Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, June 16, 2003

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

– Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, February 1, 2005

Many Canadians will want to accept both of these principles: protect the traditional definition of marriage and protect the rights of minorities. The essence of my message today is that we cannot do both. We cannot have it both ways. We must make a choice between traditional marriage and the protection of minority rights.

— Canadian Minister of National Revenue John McCallum, March 21, 2005

It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that minority rights are uniform across the country. The government cannot, and should not, pick and choose which rights they will defend and which rights they will ignore.

– Irwin Cotler, Canadian Justice Minister

In civil law, marriage is a contractual arrangement. We support the government’s desire and, we believe, obligation to maintain the equality of all people before the law. Property rights, inheritance issues, access to care and personal support, are a matter of justice, and must be available in a fair and equitable manner to all.

Same-sex marriages are now a reality in Canada and I don’t think there will be any turning back. Frankly, I would have been quite shocked if someone had tried to tell me [25 years ago] that this is where the logic of the equality provision [of the Charter of Rights] would lead. But lead here it did.

I don’t know what the numbers are for California, but I can’t imagine that the legislators who bring you AB 43 would have done it without checking the polls (unless they thought it was just the right thing to do. HA!)

I used to say sign AB 43 because it will lead the people toward equality, but it looks like the people are going there anyway. So please sign AB 43 to catch up!